Ccsf

Peralta v. City of San Francisco

Good Law
427 F. App'x 616
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 21, 201110-15654California330 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

1. Peralta has failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination under Title YII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“§ 1981”), and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), because he has “presented no facts to indicate that others outside of his protected class were treated more favorably.” Foss v. Thompson, 242 F.3d 1131, 1134 (9th Cir.2001).

2. Peralta has failed to make out a prima facie case of retaliation under the same statutes because his complaint to Senior Operating Manager George Louie about Britt’s “unprofessional” conduct was not a protected activity — it did not protest an unlawful employment practice. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (defining “unlawful employment practice” as discriminating against an employee or taking action adversely affecting an employee’s status “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”).

3. Peralta’s harassment claim under the FEHA fails because he has not provided evidence that the complained-about conduct by his supervisor was “on the basis of [his] race or national origin.” Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 21 Cal.4th 121, 129 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 132 ,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.